Processing is necessary, ... but when you are manipulating the lighting to be contrary to what could have possibly existed, then the implausibility of it is where things kinda "cross the line" for me in a PJ realm (artistic rendering, it's all fair game) as it's kinda hard to have key light orientation in both areas of backlit & frontlit and left & right from a single source (i.e. sunlight).

D&B is kinda "gray" but doing it to the degree that it would require more than one key light source in ambient lighting is out of bounds for me as "obvious photoshop " that can't plausibly exist in reality ... thereby it isn't in the spirit of PJ to be representative (interesting word, open to interpretation) of the moment in time.

The image of the girl ... looks incredibly staged to me. PJ is usually construed by most viewers to be indicative of what you would have seen, had you been there. For me, while they may convey the spirit of the moment, I think the images have been altered, manipulated or staged to their detriment, rather than their honest power that I've always considered great PJ to be ... kinda blurring the line between a photojournalist and a sketch artist or art director.

I was reading about that last week. He has made fairly major edits to the image - stacking up different exposures and then blending them in a way which clearly doesn't reflect the real lighting in the street. As a result of the processing the lighting looks completely wrong to me. There is also a little touching up of bruises on the face of the child.

He hasn't cloned people in or out, nor merged two different images. Nor is there any suggestion that the image was staged. However, the emotional tone of the picture has been significantly altered by the big change in lighting and by the selective changes of lighting on the faces of people in the crowd. I don't know how ethically correct this form of processing is, but I think it is correct that people are questioning it.

Is that fundamentally different, say, from what W. Eugene Smith might have done in his darkroom, burning and dodging under the enlarger, making his documentary images from Minamata. If it's all from the same frame, I'm not sure I see a problem.

"but regarding the positions of each pixel, all of them are exactly in the same place in the JPEG - the prize-winning image - as they are in the raw file. I would therefore rule out any question of a composite image."

This is what matters to me. So long as the image still portrays the same exact moment as the original RAW I don't mind some post processing with shadows/highlights/color. Camera sensors do not yet reproduce what the human eye sees so until that time we are dependent on the actual photographer giving us what they thought they saw at the time.

I have no idea whether the event was staged or not but that goes to a very different ethical discussion then post processing a photo.

So, which is the real, unstaged image ... or have they all been staged (compare below)?

Granted, the death is an atrocity that is real, but I find the obvious staging in the girl's image(s) to be discrediting to one or more who practice such, even if it is "accepted practice" to produce a more "powerful" image to generate a stronger emotional response. I'm good with D&B processing and the variability it uses to help "draw the eye" of the viewer to the message, but imo at least keep it plausible vs. incongruent. There comes a point when we should acknowledge that "staged is staged" and "fake is fake" ... it is a slippery slope.

Artistic creation vs. PJ ... we'll all draw our "line" at different places, but I find the practice of staging to be more akin to being an art director more than a journalist.

And, btw ... what happened to the blood patterns if there supposedly wasn't any "photoshopping at a pixel level" to any significant degree being done. Readily noticeable evidence of "PJ tampering" for me includes both pre- and post- capture manipulations (which is rather different from "D&B" processing variance):

Integrity of PJ is a highly subjective and opinionated one. Your call at how you see it ... but logic alone dictates that at least three (likely all four) are staged images because the girl didn't move herself, the rocks or the pictures. Neither did she run back to the store for more pictures, nor get cleaning supplies to wipe up the blood. If you expect me to believe the "award winning" (last) one is unstaged and processed with PJ integrity ... pack a lunch, it'll be a long day. The scene is powerful enough without moving things around to your liking and should have simply been shot as it was without all the repositioning of subject and environmental props.

I wonder if she was even carrying all of those pictures to begin with. Even in the B&W image with only one picture, notice how the picture is precariously positioned with a corner on the rock to keep it out of the pool of blood ... is that the way the picture actually landed (figure the odds)?. I've not been to Haiti, but those protective frame corners look awfully nice for a place that is supposed to be in such dismal condition.

From there, it all unravels as staged, staged and more staged. What, and suddenly the "award winning" photographer found "integrity" with the death of two kids and just happens to win again without any staging involved? Fool me once, shame on you ...

I believe in "making your own luck" by putting forth the effort to be there, capture the moment, wait for the shot or the right light, etc. ... but staging brings a new dimension to "make your own". Subjective and debatable ... call it how you see it. Personally, I believe that PJ is about "real" and my "journalistic" look at these images is that they are staged (comparative deduction) and falsely processed (moved/removed blood) ... even if that is "blasphemy" against a two-time "award winning" photographer by an old, never has been, cyber-nobody.

A powerful image, certainly. An integral, "that's the way it really looked" (after we posed everything the way we wanted it and cleaned it up in PS) one ... I'm not buying it.